^ Probes that are fixed are not removed and put back! The probe is not just stuck in but is connected to a whole lot of plumbing etc that has to be managed every time it is removed and put back. Also even if a probe is not used there will be different missions so who will keep removing and putting it back. The original idea was to ahve a rtractable probe but there major space constraints with our light fighter.In some ways the "lightness" of Tejas added a whole lot of problems but also made us manage a whole lot of problems in a new manner !

Spent the last 4 days reading the last 20 pages of the discussion in this thread and boy what a roller coaster it was.That said, I personally believe if we want to prevent/reduce such such future attacks on based on fallicious data, we should release a white paper on the LCA and the way forward. We have enough intelligentsia here to cover all aspects from technical to commercial to strategic effects of the program. And if we can leverage certain members, I am sure we can even deliver it to RM herself, but that is too much for now. If we can get acting on it immediately I am sure we can publish it by Feb/march 2018.

Kashi wrote:Where exactly is the position of the refuelling probe. Will it interfere with pilot's view?

I cannot seem to find any images that show the view from the pilot's side. I think some front views may have been posted in this thread.

The probe was moved to a better position based on pilot feedback. ADA is working diligently on the probe and want o deliver it before FOC. But AFAIK, IAF is okay if that can't be delivered before FoC. It is not a show stopper. The gun would be. More ground testing coming up shortly. So is first flight of SP5.

Moved to a different position compared to the picture that was posted in the thread 1 page ago? Won't that mean that it needs to be re-attached with internal plumbing also having to be moved with the probe position?

the IFR probe is important from the perspective of removing that one ridiculous accusation of low endurance (even though it is exactly in the ballpark of the airplane it was designed to replace and for sure as per ASR). Once IFR is integrated and tested, the Tejas will have 1 hour endurance, unrefueled and with refueling, endurance will only be limited by liquid O2 carried onboard- which would not be an issue if the Tejas Mk1 had OBOGS. But what's happening with the OBOGS? It was qualified a long time ago and since then there has been no news of its integration on Tejas Mk1. Firmly set for integration with Tejas Mk2 only?

Looking forward to seeing SP5 fly finally. Did you get any idea as to what was the issue that held its first flight back?

prasannasimha wrote:Yes the Mirages was removable but not just between sortees- It was always a planned event for a plane.

The funny thing is, from what I recall, the original Mirages were supposed to have the inflight refueling probes, but the IAF paid Dassault to have them removed, but keeping the internal plumbing as such. And then, when we got our own refuelers, they had to pay it get it re-installed.

Indranil wrote:The probe was moved to a better position based on pilot feedback. ADA is working diligently on the probe and want o deliver it before FOC. But AFAIK, IAF is okay if that can't be delivered before FoC. It is not a show stopper. The gun would be. More ground testing coming up shortly. So is first flight of SP5.

Moved to a different position compared to the picture that was posted in the thread 1 page ago? Won't that mean that it needs to be re-attached with internal plumbing also having to be moved with the probe position?

No. From where the designers had earlier envisaged. After the probe has been attached, it hasn't been moved.

Kartik wrote:But what's happening with the OBOGS? It was qualified a long time ago and since then there has been no news of its integration on Tejas Mk1. Firmly set for integration with Tejas Mk2 only?

I read somewhere that DEBEL had handed it over. HAve heard nothing about its integration. One of my biggest cribs with Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A.

Kartik wrote:Looking forward to seeing SP5 fly finally. Did you get any idea as to what was the issue that held its first flight back?

I know why it was on the ground. I don't think I should say it if HAL and ADA havn't. Nothing major. Initial niggles of manufacturing. It is coming from the new line.

Thank you IR. SP7 to follow soon after as well? There are just 22 days left in December and they have to deliver these 2 jets before the year end. Otherwise they'll slip on their target to deliver 11 SPs to the IAF before end March 2018.

Kartik wrote:Moved to a different position compared to the picture that was posted in the thread 1 page ago? Won't that mean that it needs to be re-attached with internal plumbing also having to be moved with the probe position?

No. From where the designers had earlier envisaged. After the probe has been attached, it hasn't been moved.

Kartik wrote:But what's happening with the OBOGS? It was qualified a long time ago and since then there has been no news of its integration on Tejas Mk1. Firmly set for integration with Tejas Mk2 only?

I read somewhere that DEBEL had handed it over. HAve heard nothing about its integration. One of my biggest cribs with Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A.

Kartik wrote:Looking forward to seeing SP5 fly finally. Did you get any idea as to what was the issue that held its first flight back?

I know why it was on the ground. I don't think I should say it if HAL and ADA havn't. Nothing major. Initial niggles of manufacturing. It is coming from the new line.

Don't even put this down on BR about 2nd line. Lots of copy paste dudes - another flurry or shitty articles will arrive. Please re-edit your post and delete mine.

prasannasimha wrote:Yes the Mirages was removable but not just between sortees- It was always a planned event for a plane.

The funny thing is, from what I recall, the original Mirages were supposed to have the inflight refueling probes, but the IAF paid Dassault to have them removed, but keeping the internal plumbing as such. And then, when we got our own refuelers, they had to pay it get it re-installed.

Kartik wrote:The funny thing is, from what I recall, the original Mirages were supposed to have the inflight refueling probes, but the IAF paid Dassault to have them removed, but keeping the internal plumbing as such. And then, when we got our own refuelers, they had to pay it get it re-installed.

It was the same with the Jaguars too. IAF actually paid extra to have the plumbing removed.Then they re added the plumbing and refueling probes once the IL-78s arrived.

prasannasimha wrote:^^Many assume that slapping the IFR probe is easy. The issue is not just the probe drogue attachment but rather the fuel redistribution when it is guzzling into the plane during flight which is a rapid event requiring significant rewriting of control laws after repeated flight testing to meet CEMILAC's standards. So the amount of testing etc and revalidation in various regimes.

My 'educated guess' to be taken FWIW:

There is an aerodynamic issue that can only be "worked around". The flights happen with a 'tentative work-around' which will clear for the limited flight regimes to qualify the IFR. But the permanent work-around covering the full envelope is a much more difficult task.

4 #Tejas variants undertook night attack missions for the FIRST TIME. Challenges of night attack were adequacy and acceptability of displays in cockpit for ops. Ops done through instruments. Algorithms fine-tuned. No new weapons tested

"Tejas is a good aircraft and we need to produce it in good numbers to fill the gap. We need to encourage indigenous aviation technologies. Even the US took at least two decades with the F-16. You need to give some time," he said.

viveks wrote:I think so to. HAL should partly be privatized or the government should sort of employ a contracting private company to oversee management functions.

HAL shares are going to be sold to the public soon IIRC. But a government company cannot be hived off to the private sector without massive labour protests.

In the lay media we see left liberals criticize the government for being draconian, dictatorial etc. But the idea of selling off public sector companies and then putting down any protests with a strong hand - an idea that I have seen suggested on BRF is exactly that: "Draconian and dictatorial" - and will fuel unrest and more paralysis. Politics and leadership is more difficult than suggestions that come flying off one's fingers. A general truism is - that which is easy will get done. That which is difficult will get delayed or not done. So its not as if no one gets these ideas. Implementing them is not easy.

Dhirubhai Ambani could rule his kingdom like a monarch - but a country with a democratic government simply will not work that way. People hate democracy for this reason and then the topic usually shifts to how bad Indian democracy is and how things get done oh so easily in xyz democratic western nation. But we must reach solutions that are feasible in India under Indian democracy which will improve things and not make them worse.

... a country with a democratic government simply will not work that way. People hate democracy for this reason and then the topic usually shifts to how bad Indian democracy is and how things get done oh so easily in xyz democratic western nation. But we must reach solutions that are feasible in India under Indian democracy which will improve things and not make them worse.

GoI's strategy for PSUs that no longer serve the original purpose has been to let them atrophy. Don't make anything. HMT is a good example along with the bicycle plant and dozens of other 'workfare' schemes. Selling HAL share to the public means what? Any more accountability for management? The shares will be bought up by LIC and others so I'm not sure what going public will do.

You have to take 'boiling frog' approach. If you toss a frog into boiling water, it is likely to jump out. Heat up the water slowly, and the frog stays in and gets boiled. That has to be the approach. A parallel private sector/PSU approach with no growth of the latter—atrophy. If you think about what is happening now: the PSU unions are fighting to prevent private sector companies from getting the contracts even if the result is imports. Also let us keep in mind the ideology of the PSU Union bosses.

Just for the record (after former CoAS ACM Raha made his statements recently), a Dec.2015 report citing IAF doubts about the LCA, capabilities and manufacturing quality,after the GOI gave the green light for 120 said the foll:

IAF official:HAL has a poor record of delivering on time and produces inferior products.The IAF was forced to buy the LCA MK-1 tx to the make-in-India policy.Only MK-2 would meet the IAF's reqs. but nowhere on the horizon.

To overcome shortcomings according to the MOD would have an SP jammer, Israeli AESA radar and A-to-A refuelling would improve capability to be called MK-1 A.AM Subash Bhojwani said that an AESA radar and A-To-A refuelling would compensate most of the aircraft's deficiencies," with regard to day-to-day line maintenance , I understand Tejas is still an engineer's nightmare.I have yet to see any HAL aircraft where the canopy of one aircraft fits another without a lot of adjustments, the same for any other aircraft component.Each aircraft seems to be ever so slightly different; this is a major shortcoming. US and French-origin aircraft are designed from drawing board onwards to be easy to repair and parts are freely swappable.If HAL has made Tejas more maintenance-friendly than its predecessor products then my stated opinion would need to undergo modification."

"I can only presume that Tejas ( upgraded with better sensors and avionics) now meets the low end needs of the IAF , although I think it will be used largely in its own airspace, thus freeing up more capable platforms to do the more challenging job of cross-border missions," Bhojwani said.

Another IAF officer said that HAL could not be relied upon to deliver MK-1A on time."It would've been better to set up another aerospace agency other than HAL to meet increased numbers or procure aicraft from abroad on a fast track basis."

This is a 2 yr. old report, but illustrates the IAF's attitude and reservations about HAL doing the biz.It would explain how the SEF req. came about and hopefully if substantial progress has been made by HAL since then, why the SEF may be dumped in favour of more capable TEFs.The ball though is still in HAL's court to deliver with the LCA.

^^^Anyone who thinks SEF/TEF import will come in quickly has been living in another world altogether. LCA Mk.1 is here and getting that in numbers should be the priority. Hopefully, the dreams of yet another imported fighter SEF/TEF won't get in the way of a ready indigenous LCA.

If you have limited series production which are test vehicles every aircraft is bound to be different !Why are anonymous spokesmen being allowed to talk. If there is a problem it should be articulated with a formal complaint being raised not behind anyone's back.

prasannasimha wrote:If you have limited series production which are test vehicles every aircraft is bound to be different !Why are anonymous spokesmen being allowed to talk. If there is a problem it should be articulated with a formal complaint being raised not behind anyone's back.

Obviously these guys have not kept up-to-date on the LCA progress. Their minds are already made up.

Recently, there was a TV discussion on MANPAT missiles cancellation with Saurav Jha and an ex-IA Colonel. The Colonel kept referring to things that happened some 30-odd years ago as to why DRDO wasn't capable of R&D a missile. Akash was being shoved-down the IA's throat according to him. He seemed to be mesmerized by the ToT offered by the Israelis.

Please read up about the manufacturing quality of the LCA - LCA that were prototypes could not match the tolerances from a well crafted manufacturing line. But SP onward, the tolerances are so precise, that Shri Bhojwani ji (sorry to be rude) does not know what he is talking about.

Bah!! While some 'brass' diss the 'maintainability' of Tejas, the 'iron' (aka airmen) who actually work on her are in fact happy about the current birds, and EXCITED that they can actually make suggestions and requests to the designer to make their life easy.

Like the pilots who flew her, the airmen who take care of her also love her.

Philip wrote:... a Dec.2015 report citing IAF doubts about the LCA, capabilities and manufacturing quality,after the GOI gave the green light for 120 said the foll:

...AM Subash Bhojwani said that an AESA radar and A-To-A refuelling would compensate most of the aircraft's deficiencies," with regard to day-to-day line maintenance , I understand Tejas is still an engineer's nightmare.I have yet to see any HAL aircraft where the canopy of one aircraft fits another without a lot of adjustments, the same for any other aircraft component.Each aircraft seems to be ever so slightly different; this is a major shortcoming. US and French-origin aircraft are designed from drawing board onwards to be easy to repair and parts are freely swappable.If HAL has made Tejas more maintenance-friendly than its predecessor products then my stated opinion would need to undergo modification."

"I can only presume that Tejas ( upgraded with better sensors and avionics) now meets the low end needs of the IAF , although I think it will be used largely in its own airspace, thus freeing up more capable platforms to do the more challenging job of cross-border missions," Bhojwani said. ...

Well at least now we have one IAF official's name who has been speaking against the LCA.

I don't think AM is critical. What he says is right - HAL has not manufactured (dunno about HAWK and SU30MKI) planes where parts can be interchanged. Hawk was touted as teaching HAL 'modern' manufacturing capability. I do not know what it is - perhaps this. LCA is using parts that do not differ by 50-75 micron (1/3 to 1/4th the width of a human hair), that should make it maintenance friendly. Wasn't there suggestion to move 40 LRUs to make it easy to maintain. What AM is saying we will know soon.

fanne wrote:I don't think AM is critical. What he says is right - HAL has not manufactured (dunno about HAWK and SU30MKI) planes where parts can be interchanged. Hawk was touted as teaching HAL 'modern' manufacturing capability. I do not know what it is - perhaps this. LCA is using parts that do not differ by 50-75 micron (1/3 to 1/4th the width of a human hair), that should make it maintenance friendly. Wasn't there suggestion to move 40 LRUs to make it easy to maintain. What AM is saying we will know soon.

fanne wrote:I don't think AM is critical. What he says is right - HAL has not manufactured (dunno about HAWK and SU30MKI) planes where parts can be interchanged. Hawk was touted as teaching HAL 'modern' manufacturing capability. I do not know what it is - perhaps this. LCA is using parts that do not differ by 50-75 micron (1/3 to 1/4th the width of a human hair), that should make it maintenance friendly. Wasn't there suggestion to move 40 LRUs to make it easy to maintain. What AM is saying we will know soon.

That report was from Dec 2015 according to Phillip.

However, HAL had already started implementing production standardization with IOC-2 in Dec 2013. So AM's statement is based on older information of how PVs and LSPs were productionized.

Walking around the Tejas assembly line, Sridharan explains that the sixteen Tejas prototypes HAL has built are each different from the other. As the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) incrementally refined and improved the fighter, each new prototype incorporated improvements and additions. ...

“As a result of all these changes, a panel from one Tejas would not fit another. Now we will implement absolute standardisation, with identical components, assemblies and panels,” explains Sridharan.

This is being done with laser scanners that ensure that a number of key points (called “locators”) on each aircraft being built is exactly where it should be. By measuring with the laser, it is ensured that the locator is within 80 microns, i.e. about one-tenth of a millimetre, of where it should be. These are international standards, used by companies like Boeing.

It is evident from the focus of the laser trackers teams that it is painstaking work. This standardisation, and coordinating the flow of Tejas systems and sub-systems to the assembly line constitutes what Sridharan describes as the process of “stabilising” the Tejas line....

Philip wrote:Just for the record (after former CoAS ACM Raha made his statements recently), a Dec.2015 report citing IAF doubts about the LCA, capabilities and manufacturing quality,after the GOI gave the green light for 120 said the foll:

IAF official:HAL has a poor record of delivering on time and produces inferior products.The IAF was forced to buy the LCA MK-1 tx to the make-in-India policy.Only MK-2 would meet the IAF's reqs. but nowhere on the horizon.

To overcome shortcomings according to the MOD would have an SP jammer, Israeli AESA radar and A-to-A refuelling would improve capability to be called MK-1 A.AM Subash Bhojwani said that an AESA radar and A-To-A refuelling would compensate most of the aircraft's deficiencies," with regard to day-to-day line maintenance , I understand Tejas is still an engineer's nightmare.I have yet to see any HAL aircraft where the canopy of one aircraft fits another without a lot of adjustments, the same for any other aircraft component.Each aircraft seems to be ever so slightly different; this is a major shortcoming. US and French-origin aircraft are designed from drawing board onwards to be easy to repair and parts are freely swappable.If HAL has made Tejas more maintenance-friendly than its predecessor products then my stated opinion would need to undergo modification."

"I can only presume that Tejas ( upgraded with better sensors and avionics) now meets the low end needs of the IAF , although I think it will be used largely in its own airspace, thus freeing up more capable platforms to do the more challenging job of cross-border missions," Bhojwani said.

Another IAF officer said that HAL could not be relied upon to deliver MK-1A on time."It would've been better to set up another aerospace agency other than HAL to meet increased numbers or procure aicraft from abroad on a fast track basis."

This is a 2 yr. old report, but illustrates the IAF's attitude and reservations about HAL doing the biz.It would explain how the SEF req. came about and hopefully if substantial progress has been made by HAL since then, why the SEF may be dumped in favour of more capable TEFs.The ball though is still in HAL's court to deliver with the LCA.

Philip, its two year old report. Why keep raking old stuff?. Tejas is entering squadron service. ACM Raha is also seeking more of them.

Yes there is frustration with production and bottlenecks are being identiified and being worked.

Philip wrote:Just for the record (after former CoAS ACM Raha made his statements recently), a Dec.2015 report citing IAF doubts about the LCA, capabilities and manufacturing quality,after the GOI gave the green light for 120 said the foll:

IAF official:HAL has a poor record of delivering on time and produces inferior products.The IAF was forced to buy the LCA MK-1 tx to the make-in-India policy.Only MK-2 would meet the IAF's reqs. but nowhere on the horizon.

To overcome shortcomings according to the MOD would have an SP jammer, Israeli AESA radar and A-to-A refuelling would improve capability to be called MK-1 A.AM Subash Bhojwani said that an AESA radar and A-To-A refuelling would compensate most of the aircraft's deficiencies," with regard to day-to-day line maintenance , I understand Tejas is still an engineer's nightmare.I have yet to see any HAL aircraft where the canopy of one aircraft fits another without a lot of adjustments, the same for any other aircraft component.Each aircraft seems to be ever so slightly different; this is a major shortcoming. US and French-origin aircraft are designed from drawing board onwards to be easy to repair and parts are freely swappable.If HAL has made Tejas more maintenance-friendly than its predecessor products then my stated opinion would need to undergo modification."

"I can only presume that Tejas ( upgraded with better sensors and avionics) now meets the low end needs of the IAF , although I think it will be used largely in its own airspace, thus freeing up more capable platforms to do the more challenging job of cross-border missions," Bhojwani said.

Another IAF officer said that HAL could not be relied upon to deliver MK-1A on time."It would've been better to set up another aerospace agency other than HAL to meet increased numbers or procure aicraft from abroad on a fast track basis."

This is a 2 yr. old report, but illustrates the IAF's attitude and reservations about HAL doing the biz.It would explain how the SEF req. came about and hopefully if substantial progress has been made by HAL since then, why the SEF may be dumped in favour of more capable TEFs.The ball though is still in HAL's court to deliver with the LCA.

Philip, its two year old report. Why keep raking old stuff?. Tejas is entering squadron service. ACM Raha is also seeking more of them.

Yes there is frustration with production and bottlenecks are being identiified and being worked.